Alright... I might as well jump in with both feet and talk about how some are calling J.B. Van Hollen a RINO:

J.B. Van Hollen says he's a true-blue Republican. But his bridges with the GOP faithful could be smoldering.

First of all... shouldn't he be saying that he's a "true-red" Republican?  I thought the blue states were Democrat?  But I digress:

He's bagged an investigation into Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's fundraising. He's issued legal opinions that say Wisconsin's ban on partial-birth abortion is probably toothless and the University of Wisconsin System can legally use race in admissions.

Just last month the Justice Department canceled plans for a prayer at a state Capitol service for murder victims after the Freedom From Religion Foundation objected.

Van Hollen insists he's conducting business as promised, placing the law before his personal beliefs.
...
"I'm not looking to turn this from a Democratic-activist attorney general's office into a Republican-activist attorney general's office," Van Hollen said. "I made that quite clear during the course of the campaign and I made it even clearer by my actions."

As per usual form in the blogosphere, there are a lot of wild claims being made.  And to be honest, I haven't investigated these specific issues enough to know for sure whether they had actual merit or not.  But from what I've read among those on the right so far, they seem to be more upset that Van Hollen isn't simply making rulings as they want, as opposed to what the law says.  That is not the job of the Attorney General.  The Attorney General's job is to enforce the law as it was passed by the legislature, not invent new law.

But let's be realistic here.  Nobody should be surprised at this reaction by Republicans.  Whenever one particular party is in the minority in the legislature, but holds power in an executive office, they suddenly want that executive office to be more powerful than it really is.  Everybody loves having a King when the King is from our party.  What people seem to forget is that there will always come a time when the King will be from the other party, and will get all those powers you granted the last guy too.

But... if you think that Van Hollen is wrong on his interpretation... show proof dammit!  Being Attorney General isn't about the end result... it's about the law that got you there.  So if you don't like the result, then quote the law that was misinterpreted.  Form matters in this case.  And will people stop quoting Jessica McBride on this issue please.  Can anyone honestly think that she can have an open mind when it comes to Van Hollen?